Senator McCain re-states his position, that we should be forcefully involving ourselves with the reformist revolution in Iran. I'm starting to think that this is more than grandstanding on his part; maybe he actually believes this would work. Not encouraging.
The Obama administration has responded passively and tepidly to the extraordinary demonstrations on the streets of Iran, in which tens [more like hundreds, Lemur] of thousands have protested fraudulent elections and a media crackdown. The president has carefully avoided offering any expression of solidarity to the brave men and women who are risking their lives, and the State Department has even refused to use the word "condemn" in response to violent attacks against them.
Defenders of this approach claim that such restraint is necessary, and that to do otherwise would either discredit the protesters or undermine our nuclear diplomacy with the regime they oppose.
These arguments are not persuasive. To begin with, engagement with the regime should not come at the expense of engagement with the people. It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who conducted hard-headed diplomacy with leaders of the Soviet Union at the same time he publicly challenged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. His words, then widely viewed as needlessly provocative, provided a beacon of hope to those suffering behind the Iron Curtain.
Perhaps that is why our democratic allies in Europe have shown no such hesitation to speak out forcefully against what they recognize as the Iranian regime's reprehensive conduct. The United States should be at the forefront of these efforts, leading all those nations that care about human freedom in an effort to condemn sham elections, denounce the violence against peaceful protesters and express solidarity with those millions of Iranians who want change. The world should expect nothing less from us, and we should expect nothing less of ourselves.
06-17-2009, 20:31
Beskar
Re: Iranian Elections
Yeah, the thing is, if America really wants the change, it can't be seen as supporting the opposition or it turns into "Iran versus America" and let's put it this way, America isn't that popular over there.
06-17-2009, 20:54
Haudegen
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator McCain
These arguments are not persuasive. To begin with, engagement with the regime should not come at the expense of engagement with the people. It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who conducted hard-headed diplomacy with leaders of the Soviet Union at the same time he publicly challenged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. His words, then widely viewed as needlessly provocative, provided a beacon of hope to those suffering behind the Iron Curtain.
:wall:
Ok, President Reagan held that speech in 1987.
But in 1989, during the weeks and months when the Eastern German people were busy overthrowing the dictatorship, fortunately there was not a single politician in the western world who was foolish enough to repeat Mr. Reagans words or did other things that could be viewed as "needlessly provocative".
There can be no doubt that the government in East Berlin would have responded very violently against the protesters (Tien-An-Men-Massacre reloaded) if they had gotten the impression that the whole thing was somehow organised or actively supported by their capitalistic enemies.
06-17-2009, 20:59
drone
Re: Iranian Elections
Obama needs to throw his support behind Imadinnerjacket, thereby labeling him as a tool of the Great Satan and unworthy of the presidency. :idea2:
06-17-2009, 21:49
Hosakawa Tito
Re: Iranian Elections
Maybe Senator McCain and others should politely enquire of the reformists if they require any aid from the US first, before running at the mouth. I don't doubt their motives, just their methods & strategy.
06-18-2009, 00:56
Ice
Re: Iranian Elections
Influential Revolutionary and former Deputy Prime Minister kidnapped from his Hospital Bed
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
(CNN) -- A former Iranian deputy prime minister who headed a group supporting increased freedom and democracy was pulled from his hospital bed and arrested Wednesday in Tehran, his granddaughter told CNN.
Ibrahim Yazdi, who is about 76 years old, is secretary-general of the Freedom Movement of Iran, said Atefeh Yazdi of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. He has suffered from prostate cancer, and his condition must be closely monitored, she said.
The arrest comes amid reports of widespread protests and violence in the wake of disputed Iranian elections.
The family found out about the arrest -- as well as that of her uncle Mohandas Tavassoli, who also is involved in the Freedom Movement of Iran -- when Ibrahim Yazdi's wife called her daughter, Lily Yazdi, in Mountain View, California.
"We knew that this was a possibility," Lily Yazdi told CNN. "They had just arrested [Tavassoli] yesterday."
She said her son, who is visiting in Tehran, had taken her father to the hospital Tuesday because he was not feeling well. He was put under observation, she said.
Her mother reported that members of the Basij came to their home and attempted to force their way in, Lily Yazdi said. Told that Ibrahim Yazdi was not home, they left, but apparently discovered he was in the hospital.
The Basij is a volunteer paramilitary force that takes its orders from Iran's Revolutionary Guard and is suspected of being behind most of the reported violence.
There has been no word from either man, granddaughter Atefeh Yazdi said, and attempts to reach relatives by telephone and online have been unsuccessful.
"It's just been very stressful," she said. "We kind of had a feeling, had a hunch that something might happen. He's been arrested before. Family members have been in prison before. He's got a history of being sought after by the government."
Atefeh Yazdi said the arrest is proof of something her grandfather has predicted for a while: that another revolution in Iran is imminent.
Ibrahim Yazdi was an aide to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 revolution that overthrew the ruling monarchy and established Iran as an Islamic republic, according to a 1979 article about him in Time magazine. Following the revolution, Yazdi held the post of deputy prime minister for revolutionary affairs in the provisional government of Medhi Bazargan, Time said. The magazine reported he later gave up that position to serve as foreign minister.
Supporters of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown in 1979, do not like Yazdi because of his role in the revolution, his granddaughter said. And the current government doesn't like him because "he's a little too liberal," she said.
According to the Freedom Movement of Iran's Web site, its main objective "is to gain freedom, independence and democracy for the Iranian nation, on the basis of modern interpretation of Islamic principles."
Atefeh Yazdi said her grandfather does not support President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the present government.
"This is just really hard because of his health condition," she said of her grandfather. "Apparently, they took him somewhere. We don't know who these people [the kidnappers] are."
Family members are worried he might be mistreated and his health will not be looked after.
"They're not nice in prisons in Iran," Lily Yazdi said.
She believes her father and Tavassoli were arrested because the Freedom Movement had put out two announcements on the election, although they were "fairly mild." The two have done nothing wrong, she said, but the government is attempting to keep any potential leadership from the people, so they will have no one else to look to. Members of other dissident groups, numbering in the hundreds, have been arrested for the same reason, she said.
The Freedom Movement's newspaper announced Ibrahim Yazdi's arrest and said 15 other members were also arrested in towns and villages across Iran, Lily Yazdi said.
Ibrahim Yazdi has been secretary-general of the Freedom Movement since 1995, according to the group's Web site.
Lily Yazdi said she has sporadic contact with her family in Iran as phone lines are up and down. But she said she is hopeful, hearing that protests have recently become more peaceful and police are providing better protection for members of the public.
News about Ibrahim Yazdi's arrest came on the day that defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi asked Iran's courts to release those arrested for protesting Friday's disputed election, according to a statement on the Web site of Moussavi's campaign.
He was 76 years old and bed ridden. These idiots must be getting desperate.
06-18-2009, 02:17
Xiahou
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Yeah, the thing is, if America really wants the change, it can't be seen as supporting the opposition or it turns into "Iran versus America" and let's put it this way, America isn't that popular over there.
I think we could safely support peaceful protests and condemn murderous crackdowns without throwing our support behind any one candidate.
06-18-2009, 02:55
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I think we could safely support peaceful protests and condemn murderous crackdowns without throwing our support behind any one candidate.
I'm trying to figure out how you would go about doing that in the current situation without appearing to back the reformers and playing into the mullah's hands. Can't quite picture it.
I hate to say it, but some commentators and politicians seem to be opposing the President's course because he's Obama, and not because they've given any strategic thought to reality.
Hosa nailed it, anyway. If the reformists ask for our help or public support, it will probably be forthcoming. In the meantime, every Iranian I've seen interviewed says that laying low is exactly what the U.S. government should be doing.
06-18-2009, 06:59
Alexander the Pretty Good
Re: Iranian Elections
Or more insidiously, Lemur, there may be those who were excited about a war on Iran that were rooting for Amadinejad...
For the photocopy appeared to be a genuine but confidential letter from the Iranian minister of interior, Sadeq Mahsuli, to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, written on Saturday 13 June, the day after the elections, and giving both Mr Mousavi and his ally, Mehdi Karroubi, big majorities in the final results. In a highly sophisticated society like Iran, forgery is as efficient as anywhere in the West and there are reasons for both distrusting and believing this document. But it divides the final vote between Mr Mousavi and Mr Karroubi in such a way that it would have forced a second run-off vote – scarcely something Mousavi's camp would have wanted.
Headed "For the Attention of the Supreme Leader" it notes "your concerns for the 10th presidential elections" and "and your orders for Mr Ahmadinejad to be elected president", and continues "for your information only, I am telling you the actual results". Mr Mousavi has 19,075,623, Mr Karroubi 13,387,104, and Mr Ahmadinejad a mere 5,698,417.
Could this letter be a fake? Even if Mr Mousavi won so many votes, could the colourless Mr Karroubi have followed only six million votes behind him? And however incredible Mr Ahmadinejad's officially declared 63 per cent of the vote may have been, could he really – as a man who has immense support among the poor of Iran – have picked up only five-and-a-half million votes? And would a letter of such immense importance be signed only "on behalf of the minister"?
For the photocopy appeared to be a genuine but confidential letter from the Iranian minister of interior, Sadeq Mahsuli, to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, written on Saturday 13 June, the day after the elections, and giving both Mr Mousavi and his ally, Mehdi Karroubi, big majorities in the final results. In a highly sophisticated society like Iran, forgery is as efficient as anywhere in the West and there are reasons for both distrusting and believing this document. But it divides the final vote between Mr Mousavi and Mr Karroubi in such a way that it would have forced a second run-off vote – scarcely something Mousavi's camp would have wanted.
Headed "For the Attention of the Supreme Leader" it notes "your concerns for the 10th presidential elections" and "and your orders for Mr Ahmadinejad to be elected president", and continues "for your information only, I am telling you the actual results". Mr Mousavi has 19,075,623, Mr Karroubi 13,387,104, and Mr Ahmadinejad a mere 5,698,417.
Could this letter be a fake? Even if Mr Mousavi won so many votes, could the colourless Mr Karroubi have followed only six million votes behind him? And however incredible Mr Ahmadinejad's officially declared 63 per cent of the vote may have been, could he really – as a man who has immense support among the poor of Iran – have picked up only five-and-a-half million votes? And would a letter of such immense importance be signed only "on behalf of the minister"?
I don't trust that at all. There is no way that Ahmadinejad only achieved 5.6 million votes and that Karroubi somehow got more than him. That doesn't go with any of the polling data or expected results prior to the election.
New allegations of voter turnout in excess of 100% have surfaced...
For the photocopy appeared to be a genuine but confidential letter from the Iranian minister of interior, Sadeq Mahsuli, to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, written on Saturday 13 June, the day after the elections, and giving both Mr Mousavi and his ally, Mehdi Karroubi, big majorities in the final results. In a highly sophisticated society like Iran, forgery is as efficient as anywhere in the West and there are reasons for both distrusting and believing this document. But it divides the final vote between Mr Mousavi and Mr Karroubi in such a way that it would have forced a second run-off vote – scarcely something Mousavi's camp would have wanted.
Headed "For the Attention of the Supreme Leader" it notes "your concerns for the 10th presidential elections" and "and your orders for Mr Ahmadinejad to be elected president", and continues "for your information only, I am telling you the actual results". Mr Mousavi has 19,075,623, Mr Karroubi 13,387,104, and Mr Ahmadinejad a mere 5,698,417.
Could this letter be a fake? Even if Mr Mousavi won so many votes, could the colourless Mr Karroubi have followed only six million votes behind him? And however incredible Mr Ahmadinejad's officially declared 63 per cent of the vote may have been, could he really – as a man who has immense support among the poor of Iran – have picked up only five-and-a-half million votes? And would a letter of such immense importance be signed only "on behalf of the minister"?
haha, looks like US psyops are playing merry-hell in iran right now.
06-18-2009, 12:59
CountArach
Re: Iranian Elections
If you want an idea of some of the numbers turning up to the protests and the demographics they represent check out these pictures. Mostly young people (And a hell of a lot of them), but also a mix of older and middle aged people as well.
Additionally several reformst clerics are holding a rally on Saturday at which Mousavi is expected to speak. If he turns up and says the right things, then this could well be the turning point where this becomes far more revolutionary.
Mostly young people (And a hell of a lot of them), but also a mix of older and middle aged people as well.
It's mostly young people because Iran is composed of mostly young people. Apparently 70% of the population is under the age of 30, which also means 70% of the population has no memory of the Shah.
- Iran's top legislative body, seeking to calm days of public fury over a disputed presidential election, has invited the three losers to discuss their complaints on Saturday, its spokesman said on Thursday.
What Obama has done instead has been to quietly facilitate and encourage what he referred to as the "healthy debate" within Iran about reform. For example, the State Department asked Twitter to delay their network upgrades, so as not to interfere with the social-media-driven organizing of the reform movement and rallies. This is in stark contrast to the short-sighted closure of Radio Amadi in 2002 by the Bush Administration, which effectively neutered the widespread popular uprisings in the streets of Tehran after the sentencing of popular reformist academic Hashem Aghajari. Of course, the Bush Administration routinely engaged in empty rhetoric against the Iranian regime ("axis of evil"), which only made the regime less willing to tolerate reform. [...]
Let's not forget that Obama has spoken directly to the Iranian people before the election — Obama's Nowruz greeting to the Iranian people was an end-run around the regime and a tangible encouragement for the Iranians to seek change, as this anecdote from an Iranian-American girl visiting family in Tehran illustrates:
Arguably, it was Barack Obama who brought down the virtual wall between Iran and the West with his conciliatory and hopeful Nowruz (Iran's New Year) message on YouTube. I looked on as my friends and family watched his message with adoration in Tehran. "Why can't he be our president", one aunt gushed. It hit a chord, mainly because it made Ahmadinejad look foolish.
The point here is that saber-rattling and stern lectures about freedom and democracy are one approach, which give the appearance of "support" for reformists' cause but in fact make things much worse. What does work is direct engagement of the people, giving them resources they can use as they take their own destiny in hand.
06-18-2009, 15:05
Xiahou
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm trying to figure out how you would go about doing that in the current situation without appearing to back the reformers and playing into the mullah's hands. Can't quite picture it.
You could say something like... I dunno "We support the right of people everywhere to be able to organize and peacefully protest in the exercise of free speech and we condemn any violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters." You can't picture that? Surely there's room to condemn the political killings we're seeing now without endorsing any specific candidate.
What Gordon Brown is quoted as saying doesn't sound too unreasonable to me either:
Quote:
"The elections are a matter for the Iranian people, but if there are serious questions that are now being asked about the conduct of the elections, they have got to be answered," he said.
"There must be no violence in response to peaceful protests," he added, after seven people were killed in demonstrations in Iran on Monday.
Quote:
"The relationship they will have and the respect they will have from the rest of the world will depend on how they respond to what are legitimate grievances that are being expressed and have to be answered."
I think Obama's comparative silence is implicit support for the current Iranian regime and is realpolitik- he wants to work with the regime on the nuclear issue rather than upsetting them by criticizing their violent crackdowns on protesters. Will his decision pay off? I guess we'll see.
Actually, as of last night, Obama has somewhat tepidly raised concerns saying that he was "deeply troubled" by the violence and notes that the Iranian government is looking into alleged election "irregularities". Read the transcript here.
Meanwhile, protesters tell a CNN reporter that if Obama accepts the rigged election, they're "doomed".
The foreign media and western states are confused and puzzled as to how to interpret the Iranian election on June 12th. Over the past few days I've been speaking with many journalists in Tehran who normally go there for one or two weeks on assignment. Many of them, initially, believed that Ahmadinejad's declared re-election was similar in nature to his first term election in 2005. Meaning that he had successfully mobilized his base of poor people and conservatives and that the reformists and Iranian middle class had, once again, lost the election. But recent development tells us that this is not the real story.
So, what are the sources of confusion? What went wrong and why are people angry and un-accepting of the results? Here are some essential questions that one might ask in order to fully understand the issues at hand:
Was the Iranian election rigged?
No doubt it was. There are many signs that indicate a very organized fraud, which has been in the works for many months.
It's inconceivable that Ahmadinejad could have won 24 millions votes. How could he when he had only received just over 5 million in the first round of the 2005 election? (MM Bold and interesting point) In the second round he gained 16 million and that was simply because he was running against Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was very unpopular at the time, a man that was rumored to have corruption in his family, rumors that became etched in the memory of the Iranian people. There was even a saying that "anybody could beat Hashemi in the second round". At that time, even Ahmadineajds's second position in the first round was so controversial that he was accused of an organized fraud led by Iran's militia forces, Basijis, and the Revolutionary Guard. Now, without any change in Iran's demography, he received, in some places, figures of twenty times more votes than he did four years ago.
During the past four years, Ahmadinejad's economic policies have increased inflation from approximately 11 percent to 25 percent, more than double. The effects of such policies have been a hard reality for millions of Iranians. He is the only president in Iran who has not gained the support of Iran's middle class and elite. Although his government spent billions of dollars on propaganda, he remained widely criticized by reformists, experts, civil society activists and even some conservatives. On the other hand, Mousavi (Iran's prime minister at the time of war with Iraq 1980-1988) is very well respected and popular in the society.
Iranian people know him as a man of integrity, a politician who managed the war economy quite thoughtfully. The overwhelming support for Mousavi by the Iranian middle class, the political elite, reformists and millions of people was contagious even amongst part of the conservative base (also known as Ahmadinejad's base). Mousavi drew crowds of more than 50,000 to his rallies over the past three months in small and large cities alike, not just in Tehran. So a landslide victory seemed like a joke.
When did the suspicion start?
On election night, Mousavi received a call from the Ministry of Interior telling him of his victory. Meanwhile, a committee, which included the Minister of Interior himself and two of his deputies, announced different results. They declared Ahmadinejad as Iran's President elect faster than anyone could imagine. While the election was still in progress a news agency, known to strongly support Ahmadineajd, had already written about his landslide victory. It was as if they knew in advance. In less than a few hours the authorities began announcing the results by the millions. Everybody who is familiar with Iran's bureaucracy knows that it's just impossible to have possibly counted the ballots this fast. The voting process is not computerized but totaled by hand and therefore it takes quite a bit of time, particularly with voter turnout being at a record high. So it was obvious that the results were not based on actual votes. Also, like many countries including the United States, Iran is a very diverse country. Candidates naturally have more support in some provinces than in others, like their hometown for example. It's impossible that a candidate could win by a same margin in every single province as Ahmadinejad, allegedly, has. This is numerically improbable and does not make sense to anybody. The results of this election make a mockery of the Iranian voting system and their history as a democracy.
Is it a coup?
It might not seem a classic coup. But there are indications that the fraud did not happen just on the actual Election Day. Even if 90 percent of the people voted reformists, it would never have been reflected in the ballot counts. It's just impossible. Let's review different segments of the game and then you call it whatever you want:
1. Before the elections, Ahmadinejad's supporters, major news agencies and radical newspapers, predicted a landslide victory. They even mentioned a plausible win by 60 percent! An alarming and odd a prediction in a country where one cannot even predict the price of a tomato, or an onion, from one day to the next.
2. The results were announced too quickly to be true. It was as if they already knew what the numbers were going to be. So it seems that the authorities didn't even have to bother to actually count the ballots for results.
3. On Election Day, the police were ready for the huge presence of protesters in the major cities. They were fully armed and well equipped with anti-riot gear. What was supposed to happen? Why were they so prepared?
4. A few hours after the results were announced, and even with all of the complaints, the Iranian Supreme Leader announced Ahmadinejad as the next president, and asked all of the other candidates to cooperate with the winner. Why such a rush?
5. Dozens of prominent reformist politicians and journalists were systematically arrested within 48 hours of the announcement of the presidency. Forces were organized, knowing who to arrest and where to go without legitimate reason. But this game could not afford prominent political figures to potentially play leadership roles against the outcome.
6. On Election Day SMS services were cut off followed by cell phone reception the day after. Reformists websites were blocked as well, which forced a disconnect between surprised reformists and their supporters. Everything happened very quickly. It's been part of the plan to be swift.
7. A top-down pressure began. Mousavi and Karrubi were placed immediately under unofficial house arrest. There were told that it was for their own security. Simultaneously, some of the major religious figures from the office of the Supreme leader, and reportedly, some of the other officials in power pressured Mousavi to accept the results.
8. The next day Ahmadinejad's supporters, many of whom were armed with cold arms, rallied in one of the squares in Tehran in a show of power.
9. At the same time, the spontaneous, and unexpected massive protests began. (Which was not expected on such a scale (because Iranians know how the police and the government can go wild and brutal).
Ahmadinejad called it a rebellion. It was a necessary label for justifying the police action taken to stop the protesters. The protests were peaceful, but the police themselves, started to destroy cars setting the scene for confrontation.
10. Now, you put together the above pieces and tell me what you would call it.
Is the media covering this election properly?
There are some good reports. But consider that many of the journalists are not able to report freely. They know that the government monitors their work closely. They can easily be forced to leave the country. The news agencies, which have correspondents in Tehran, do not want to jeopardize their visa situation nor their ability to have their people on the ground. Even CNN's Christiane Amanpour grossly underreported on the number of Mousavi supporters in Monday's protest in Tehran. She described "thousands" when in fact, it was apparent that there were "hundreds of thousands". It is no surprise. I personally know many journalists who have never been able to renew their visas after writing blunt pieces about the realities on the ground. For many of them it is a matter of professional survival. Beyond this, many of them are not able to connect the dots. They cannot travel throughout the country, many of them do not speak Farsi and there are there just there for a few weeks and like many are just as surprised.
Also, some of the commentators on cable TV tend to add the United States to the equation unnecessarily. This is wrong. What is happening in Iran has nothing to do with the United States. Iranians have been fighting for their rights for decades now. However, if the U.S. had an open and amicable relationship with Iran, it would be more likely that the Iranian authorities would have to behave and respect the demands of the people. The best way to follow the development of the events as they unfold is to follow multiple and diverse news channels.
What should the United States do?
President Obama is in a very critical situation. No matter what happens in the coming days, Obama should not congratulate Ahmadinejad for his victory. He did not win the election, he stole it. However he should stick to his plans to negotiate and communicate with the Iranian government. Most of the U.S. allies in the Middle East, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, have a much worst political situation on their hands and yet they remain friendly with Washington.
If the Iranian government engages with the U.S. in the coming months and years under Ahmadinejad's second term, it will surely be harder for the Iranian government to ignore their responsibility to the Iranian people. Iran's disconnect from the outside world has served the radicals in Tehran more than anybody else.
Also, the United States should not take side. If Obama supports the protesters it gives the Iranian authorities the reasons they want and need to portray the recent protest as an American phenomena. Play into made up stories of how, for instance, CIA and Moosad and the other intelligence services on the planet are behind the scenes of such an original and genuine movement. The United States and other western countries should put more pressure on the United Nations to act more decisively. So far more than 10 people have died. (I just received word from a reliable source that 9 people died in Rasool e Akram Hospital in Tehran, and a tenth one had been shot and killed earlier). The United Nation's Security Council really should hold an emergency meeting over this issue. The protests have potentials to be another Tiananmen Square, particularly when the police and the militia are interested in turning these peaceful protests to chaos. This gives them an excuse to use force, something they are waiting to do it. The UNSC should adopt a resolution in condemnation of the use of force against peaceful protests.
This post will be updated with more questions.
06-18-2009, 15:23
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You could say something like... I dunno "We support the right of people everywhere to be able to organize and peacefully protest in the exercise of free speech and we condemn any violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters." You can't picture that?
I think your disdain for our President is coloring your thinking. Obama has been quite effective so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I think Obama's comparative silence is implicit support for the current Iranian regime and is realpolitik- he wants to work with the regime on the nuclear issue rather than upsetting them by criticizing their violent crackdowns on protesters.
So now President Obama supports Imadinnerjacket? And the reason he's walking softly is that he doesn't want to upset the mullahs? Well, if we begin from the premise that Obama is a quisling traitor to America and freedom, that makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Meanwhile, protesters tell a CNN reporter that if Obama accepts the rigged election, they're "doomed".
Which is why our crypto-muslim socialist President has congratulated Imadinnerjacket on his win, and endorsed the election as legitimate. Oh, wait, that never happened.
06-18-2009, 15:32
Xiahou
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I think your disdain for our President is coloring your thinking. Obama has been quite effective so far.
So now President Obama supports Imadinnerjacket? And the reason he's walking softly is that he doesn't want to upset the mullahs? Well, if we begin from the premise that Obama is a quisling traitor to America and freedom, that makes sense.
Which is why our crypto-muslim socialist President has congratulated Imadinnerjacket on his win, and endorsed the election as legitimate. Oh, wait, that never happened.
What a worthless post, Lemur. Really- look at what you've written. Making a point is so much harder than just saying the other person has cooties, huh?
A big part of Obama's foreign policy is negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. It should be clear to anyone thatat least some part of his unwillingness to criticize the regime for arresting and killing protesters is due to the fact that he doesn't want to sour his relationship with them before any talks....
Nevermind, I should just call you a mindless Obamaton and dismiss everything you say. That's how it's done, isn't it? :yes:
06-18-2009, 15:39
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
So grumpy, Xiahou. Is it always like this in the morning?
Sure, staying officially neutral allows the admin to negotiate later if the mullahs succeed in smashing the protests. It also neuters the regime's ability to brand the protesters as American tools. Seems like a typical Obama move to me, serving several purposes at once.
Whereas making grand public announcements serves what purpose?
I'm an Iranian living in Canada. A few hours ago I talked to my brother who is a student at Sharif University, he was at the big rally yesterday and they were only feet away from Karoubi when they marched from the university entrance to Azadi square. He asked what had Obama had said and I started reading the transcript. When I got to "the United States can be a handy political football, or discussions with the United States [can be]" my brother sighed and said thank God this guy gets it.
2nd from right is Rafsanjani - one of the foudners of the reformist movement in the 90s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aimlesswanderer
And the numbers were always against Mousavi. Since the 'West' wanted someone slightly less bellicose and a bit more reasonable than Ahmadinejad, they were hoping that Mousavi would win. However, his support only seems to have been strong among the uni students, and the more educated and wealthier Iranians in large cities, whereas most of the population lives in rural areas and small towns, is poor, and is more conservative. So the numbers were always against him.
Mousavi has a lot of support among the Tehran middle classes and in his home area, but not much elsewhere. I spoke to one Iranian who was unimpressed with him. Mousavi used to be in the government and never amounted to much when he was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The point here is that saber-rattling and stern lectures about freedom and democracy are one approach, which give the appearance of "support" for reformists' cause but in fact make things much worse. What does work is direct engagement of the people, giving them resources they can use as they take their own destiny in hand
Well quite. The legacy of the Bush years - agression, election rigging, torture, moralising are all legimitimised. Do what we say, not what we do.
06-18-2009, 15:49
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
The Guardian has a liveblog of today's protests. Don't know if they have a local or if they smuggled a reporter in, but they're getting info out, so kudos.
So grumpy, Xiahou. Is it always like this in the morning?
Sure, staying officially neutral allows the admin to negotiate later if the mullahs succeed in smashing the protests. It also neuters the regime's ability to brand the protesters as American tools. Seems like a typical Obama move to me, serving several purposes at once.
Whereas making grand public announcements serves what purpose?
Well, you almost made your point without name-calling. Imagine if you had just done that in the first place. :idea2:
As to the purpose: What purpose does the US condemning human rights abuses anywhere serve? Should we ever do it?
Here is an interesting article from the Politico that looks at arguments from both sides. As an aside, I think James Rosen is a strong contender for "best journalist question of the year" for this exchange::beam:
Quote:
On Saturday, the White House was merely “monitoring” the situation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement. On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden said he had “doubts” about the election. And on Monday, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the U.S. is “deeply troubled” by events in Iran but stopped short of condemning them.
“I haven’t used that word, ‘condemn,’” he told the State Department press corps. “We need to see how things unfold.”
“You need to see more heads cracked in the middle of the street?” Fox News’ James Rosen shot back.
“We need a deeper assessment of what’s going on,” Kelly said.
I actually saw that quip- great stuff. :laugh4:
I'm certain that an outright endorsement of the opposition by the US would be unhelpful and unwelcome. But I also think we could stand to speak out more strongly against the political killings and mass arrests that we're seeing now. Once the government finishes cracking down on the protesters, which they most likely will, I'd prefer that our nation had gone on record supporting their rights to free speech rather than having just stood idly by. The Iranian regime should know that we'll call them out on abuses, and the Iranian people should know that we support their rights to organize and speak out while being free from violent reprisals. Would that irritate the current regime? Of course it would- but Ahmadinejad has yet to speak with anything but derision when it comes to negotiations anyhow, so it's hard to see how much it would hurt.
I acknowledge the realpolitik angle, I'm just not certain it's the right approach. I don't know that condemning the Iranian regime's human rights abuses will change anything either. But, our having said something substantive would sit with me a lot better once this is all over. Regardless, I'm not going to claim to be so sure of the right answer that anyone disagreeing is only doing so to score political points.
06-18-2009, 16:29
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
As to the purpose: What purpose does the US condemning human rights abuses anywhere serve? Should we ever do it?
If a rhetorical question gets asked in the woods, does a tree fall?
I think your position is strangely history- and strategy-free. When we comdemn human rights abuses, 99% of the time we are not doing so in a place where we helped overthrow a democratically elected government. That may not register for you, but it certainly does for Iranians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I think James Rosen is a strong contender for "best journalist question of the year" for this exchange
So you think a Fox News reporter deserves a special award for asking about "cracked heads." There's so much irony potential in this that I don't know where to start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Once the government finishes cracking down on the protesters, which they most likely will, I'd prefer that our nation had gone on record supporting their rights to free speech rather than having just stood idly by.
Like many conservatives, you seem to believe that the odds of reform in Iran are small. What leads you to this conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Would that irritate the current regime? Of course it would- but Ahmadinejad has yet to speak with anything but derision when it comes to negotiations anyhow, so it's hard to see how much it would hurt.
On the contrary, Imadinnerjacket would rejoice if we publicly supported the reformers at this point. He'd likely send flowers and a thank-you note, maybe a fruit basket. Nothing could make the mullah-military complex happier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
But, our having said something substantive would sit with me a lot better once this is all over.
To which I say, don't just do something, stand there! Tomorrow the situation may be different, but at the moment the prudent course for the U.S. seems blindingly obvious. As it stands, 24 hours is a long time in Iranian politics.
Here's a buffet sampler of opinions from people who think we should be doing more:
Krauthammer: "The president is also speaking in code. [...] The code the administration is using is implicit support for this repressive, tyrannical regime."
Hays: "Obama is the first American president who is unaware of the historical sources of America’s moral strength. In his tepid response to events in Iran, the president hailed democratic process, freedom of speech, and the ability to select one’s own leaders as “universal values.” But they aren't. A quick glance around the world’s totalitarian regimes, including most especially that of Iran, should convince anyone of that. These values come from America and the West. Imagine having a president who either doesn't know or won't say it."
Rubin: "[R]ather than dismiss Obama's approach as a fantasy, the belief that engagement and dialogue can always succeed is an ideology, one that infects a good proportion of those who consider themselves realists. Carter, as president, started with a different ideology, one that saw human rights in foreign policy as paramount. Memoirs of Carter administration officials show he moved to undercut the Shah in part because, he felt that Khomeini would be better for human rights. Carter was wrong, and stubborn. Rather than admit some of his pet targets — Mugabe, Arafat, Assad were not interested in peace or human rights, he simply shed this pretext and embraced the same ideology which Obama appears to have now — a belief in moral equivalency and the idea that negotiation can solve all ills regardless of the extremism of the adversary and the immorality of the position."
06-18-2009, 16:36
Idaho
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
As to the purpose: What purpose does the US condemning human rights abuses anywhere serve? Should we ever do it?
You never seemed that bothered by the Patriot Act or G-Bay.
06-18-2009, 16:41
Idaho
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Krauthammer: "The president is also speaking in code. [...] The code the administration is using is implicit support for this repressive, tyrannical regime."
Hays: "Obama is the first American president who is unaware of the historical sources of America’s moral strength. In his tepid response to events in Iran, the president hailed democratic process, freedom of speech, and the ability to select one’s own leaders as “universal values.” But they aren't. A quick glance around the world’s totalitarian regimes, including most especially that of Iran, should convince anyone of that. These values come from America and the West. Imagine having a president who either doesn't know or won't say it."
Rubin: "[R]ather than dismiss Obama's approach as a fantasy, the belief that engagement and dialogue can always succeed is an ideology, one that infects a good proportion of those who consider themselves realists. Carter, as president, started with a different ideology, one that saw human rights in foreign policy as paramount. Memoirs of Carter administration officials show he moved to undercut the Shah in part because, he felt that Khomeini would be better for human rights. Carter was wrong, and stubborn. Rather than admit some of his pet targets — Mugabe, Arafat, Assad were not interested in peace or human rights, he simply shed this pretext and embraced the same ideology which Obama appears to have now — a belief in moral equivalency and the idea that negotiation can solve all ills regardless of the extremism of the adversary and the immorality of the position."
Right wing zionists are terrified of an invigourated and democratic middle east. Nothing scares them more. They would rather dismiss those opposed to Israel and loons and demagogues. They never want it to be known that the people of the middle east can legitimately manage their own politics, and (almost swoons) their own natural resources.
06-18-2009, 16:47
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
Hmm, this discussion is complicated enough without dragging Israel into it.
The Economist has a very good, very pithy summation of the dilemma the mullah-military complex faces:
Mr Khamenei faces a deep quandary. A resolution to the crisis that fails to assuage the huge and growing mass of Mr Mousavi’s supporters would do permanent damage to his regime’s democratic pillar. Few Iranians would ever again deign to volunteer for the empty pageantry of voting. Yet giving in completely to their demands would expose his own weakness and fallibility. Underlying all this is the bitter irony that in its paranoia to avoid a “velvet revolution”, Iran’s deep state has itself engineered precisely the conditions that might make such a revolution happen.
-edit-
And a long-viewed assessment of what we are doing:
It turns out that while all this was going on, the State Department was—quietly and without fanfare—calling up Twitter, which had effectively become critical infrastructure for the opposition, to delay a maintenance outage scheduled for peek Iranian tweeting-hours. That may not have been why there was a delay, but it does suggest that perhaps the administration is finding subtle ways to support democratic openness without a lot of counterproductive bluster that would conjure bad memories of U.S. interference in other countries’ choice of leaders. They’d probably have more instruments for gentle pressure if we weren’t already totally disengaged from Iran—the trouble with making a big show of utterly shunning bad regimes is that you’ve got nowhere to go when there’s a propitious occasion to give them a nudge in a healthier direction—but for all we know they’re doing other similarly subtle, unobtrusive stuff behind the scenes. It’s almost as if they’re more concerned with what actually contributes to human rights in Iran than with what provides the best fap-fodder for hawks at home.
06-18-2009, 16:50
Scurvy
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The Guardian has a liveblog of today's protests. Don't know if they have a local or if they smuggled a reporter in, but they're getting info out, so kudos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guardian
Our man in Tehran, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, says Mousavi joind the silent protesters at 6pm local time while supporters shouted: "Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein".
the silent protest going well then :beam:
Its all getting very interesting though, I originally dismissed the protest as a short-term reaction to the election result, but it seems it has the potential to go further.
06-18-2009, 17:17
Xiahou
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I think your position is strangely history- and strategy-free. When we comdemn human rights abuses, 99% of the time we are not doing so in a place where we helped overthrow a democratically elected government. That may not register for you, but it certainly does for Iranians.
I'm very well aware of our history with Iran. I just don't see how standing quietly by while democracy takes another beating will absolve our previous acts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Like many conservatives, you seem to believe that the odds of reform in Iran are small. What leads you to this conclusion?
I don't know one way or the other- but I think objective thinking suggests that these protests leading to an overthrow of the Iranian government, while possible, is far less likely than the regime rounding up/purging ring leaders and having the protests eventually fizzle. I'd much prefer regime change, I just don't think it's the most likely outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
On the contrary, Imadinnerjacket would rejoice if we publicly supported the reformers at this point. He'd likely send flowers and a thank-you note, maybe a fruit basket. Nothing could make the mullah-military complex happier.
Well, seeing as how the British Ambassador was summoned by the Iranians for a chewing out over Brown's statements, it's a little hard for me to believe that they'd send us a fruit basket for, similarly criticizing their abuses. As for "publicly supporting reformers", I don't think anyone has advocated that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
So you think a Fox News reporter deserves a special award for asking about "cracked heads." There's so much irony potential in this that I don't know where to start.
I don't care who he's a journalist for- I just thought it was funny how he caught a State Dept bureaucrat in an absurd statement. (paraphrasing)"No, we aren't condemning the violence, we're going to wait and see what happens." What Rosen said was the perfect response to that.
For more perspective, here's a WaPo column by Nader Mousavizadeh. I think he makes some interesting points.
06-18-2009, 17:31
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I think objective thinking suggests that these protests leading to an overthrow of the Iranian government, while possible, is far less likely than th regime rounding up/purging ring leaders and having the protests eventually fizzle.
Sounds like a false dichotomy rather than "objective thinking" to this lemur. Why must the resolution be either total revolution or total oppression? I don't think either of those outcomes is likely. There are splits within the regime over how to handle this, they're presenting anything but a unified front. If the mullah-military cabal wants to avoid looking like butchers (and it increasingly seems they do) they're going to have to come up with some sort of compromise with the protesters, which will probably involve blaming everything on Ahmadinejad and throwing him under the nearest bus.
Direct that "objective thinking" at the reality on the ground; look at what is actually happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Well, seeing as how the British Ambassador was summoned by the Iranians for a chewing out over Brown's statements, it's a little hard for me to believe that they'd send us a fruit basket for, similarly criticizing their abuses.
Oh, no doubt they would express outrage and issue a thousand condemnations, while grinning all the way to the armory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
For more perspective, here's a WaPo column by Nader Mousavizadeh. I think he makes some interesting points.
Xiahou, I've noticed that you've been doing a double "http://" in all of your links lately, which renders them broken. Might want to look into that. Here's the corrected version.
The article hopscotches over the reality on the ground and thunders straight to the nuclear question. Analysis of what's actually happening right now is light, bordering on fluffy. "First, the administration should provide unequivocal recognition of Iran's popular movement for greater freedoms and openness, and condemn the government's crackdown."
I'd be interested to hear your response to Reza Aslan and Pat Buchannon, two men of wildly different political persuasion who have arrived at the same conclusion.
06-18-2009, 17:31
drone
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
For more perspective, here's a WaPo column by Nader Mousavizadeh. I think he makes some interesting points.
I read that earlier this morning. I liked the idea of bypassing Imadinnerjacket for talks. If you make the presidency a sham, it should be treated as such.
06-18-2009, 18:32
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
Another response to the "let's inject ourselves into the Iranian situation" crowd:
Conservatives’ approach — which is based on dangerous ideology and ignorance of the situation in Iran — would endanger demonstrators and undermine broader U.S. objectives. Commentator Joe Klein remarked that the comments by McCain and his conservative colleagues are consistent with their “dangerous habit of making broad, extreme statements based on ideology rather than detailed knowledge of the situation in Iran and elsewhere.” Even right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan condemned the approach taken by congressional conservatives, saying: “When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way... U.S. fulminations will change nothing in Tehran. But they would enable the regime to divert attention to U.S. meddling in Iran’s affairs and portray the candidate robbed in this election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as a poodle of the Americans.” Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post reported Iranian national television playing clips of FOX News to show that foreign press was trying to divide the Iranian people in order to take advantage of a weakened Iran. Trita Parsi explains their approach is not based on any familiarity with the situation in Iran: “They’re [conservatives] coming out and saying that we should side with the opposition, with Moussavi. I’m really curious to know if they’ve been in contact with Moussavi, and asked him if he thinks that’s a good idea. That’s the test that we’ve failed to pass in the past, in the sense that we’ve made up our mind on what they should want, and then we act. And then, even when it doesn’t work out the way that we hoped for, we think that it’s their fault, that they did understanding, genuinely, how positive our intentions were. We can’t do it this way.”
06-18-2009, 19:09
TinCow
Re: Iranian Elections
Obama should only step in if the Iranian people themselves ask him to. At the moment, Mousavi is the leader of the protest movement and he hasn't asked. In fact, nearly every statement I've read from Iranians on the subject indicates they are glad Obama is staying out of it. Why in the world would we want to step in when the protesters themselves don't want us to?
At the immense opposition demonstration earlier this week, I asked a young woman her name. She said, “My name is Iran.” [...]
The Islamic Republic has lost legitimacy. It is fissured. It will not be the same again. It has always played on the ambiguity of its nature, a theocracy where people vote. For a whole new generation, there’s no longer room for ambiguity. [...]
Unlike the student-led protests of [1999 and 2003], a wide array of Iranians of all ages and classes are in the streets. Shopkeepers and students march side by side. Construction workers perched on scaffolding flash them the “V” for victory sign.
Protest is broader, and accompanied by more visible splits in the ruling elite than ever surfaced before. These divisions have thrust the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, into the fray from his preferred perch.
The balance of forces has changed, which is not to say the outcome will be different. But it could be.
The regime’s fundamental mistake was to insult the intelligence of Iranians. A proud people, they do not take kindly to being treated as puppet-like fools.
The grassroots level of support from various web groups (4chan, Fark, TPB, twitterheads, etc.) has been fun to watch, while the MSM took it's time realizing what a big deal this really is. If the US wants to "intervene", maybe No Such Agency should set up a bunch of uber high speed web proxies.
06-18-2009, 19:32
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
If the US wants to "intervene", maybe No Such Agency should set up a bunch of uber high speed web proxies.
Why wait for the NSA? Got a decent connection and a spare boxen? Set one up yourself.
-edit-
BBC has good footage of today's march. Just look at it. How can anyone in their right mind see this kind of momentum building and conclude that nothing will change?
Speculation is intensifying about the whereabouts of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who claimed victory in the Iranian presidential election but has not been seen in public since Monday, when he was in Russia for a conference.
Iranian media have reported only that the president was greeted by a number of senior government officials when he arrived home late on Tuesday.
Ahmadinejad's last public appearance in Iran was on Sunday, when he gave a combative press conference at his Tehran office for foreign and local media, and compared the supporters of the defeated election candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi to football fans whose team had lost.
06-18-2009, 20:15
drone
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Why wait for the NSA? Got a decent connection and a spare boxen? Set one up yourself.
I would imagine that the NSA could set up huge tubes (big enough to drive a truck through), with superfast servers, in many different countries and on many different IP blocks. Something the average .Org dweller cannot do (but the "Proxy@Home" movement has its advantages, wide regional distribution being the biggest). They could either setup and run them under a front, or openly with some form of plausible deniability (um, AA3 download servers, yeah, that's the ticket...)
I would imagine that the NSA could set up huge tubes (big enough to drive a truck through), with superfast servers, in many different countries and on many different IP blocks. Something the average .Org dweller cannot do (but the "Proxy@Home" movement has its advantages, wide regional distribution being the biggest). They could either setup and run them under a front, or openly with some form of plausible deniability (um, AA3 download servers, yeah, that's the ticket...)
I can't decide if this debate is just partisan hackery as usual or an eruption of national narcissism.
06-19-2009, 11:04
CountArach
Re: Iranian Elections
Ayatollah Khomeini endorses the election results officially an calls for people to get behind Ahmedinejasefsdfgljnbvdirhgrv because....
Quote:
Mr Ahmadinjad had opinions closer to his own than the other candidates.
06-19-2009, 11:19
tibilicus
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Ayatollah Khomeini endorses the election results officially an calls for people to get behind Ahmedinejasefsdfgljnbvdirhgrv because....
Disgusting. And if they don't what's he going to do? Send in his "revolutionary" Guard to slaughter them? That wouldn't be something Allah would want surely?
This is why Iran needs a completely new political system, you can't have some whack job claiming to be a religious figure of authority and then at the same time claim to be a democratic country.
06-19-2009, 11:42
Furunculus
Re: Iranian Elections
it's rare that we agree, but i'm with you on this one.
06-19-2009, 12:16
Fragony
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Ayatollah Khomeini endorses the election results officially an calls for people to get behind Ahmedinejasefsdfgljnbvdirhgrv because....
"Differences of opinion do exist between officials which is natural. But it does not mean there is a rift in the system.
"The enemies (of Iran) are targeting the Islamic establishment's legitimacy by questioning the election and its authenticity before and after (the vote)."
"After street protests, some foreign powers ... started to interfere in Iran's state matters by questioning the result of the vote. They do not know the Iranian nation. I strongly condemn such interference."
Most of those are comedy material in and of themselves, but this one really puts the icing on the cake...
Quote:
"It's a wrong impression that by using street protests as a pressure tool, they can compel officials to accept their illegal demands. This would be the start of a dictatorship."
:laugh4:
06-19-2009, 14:32
tibilicus
Re: Iranian Elections
Unofficial reports are claiming the revolutionary Guard are now moving into Tehran. If this is indeed true then expect a blood bath..
I guess if anything has been gained from this situation it's that the Iranian government has been shown in its true light, a theocratic dictatorship. I know Obama hopes to have "relations" with Iran but the reality is that's never going to happen under the current leadership. I think we all know where this is going to lead to a couple of years down the line..
06-19-2009, 19:27
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
Our well-paid idiots in the House of Representatives just passed a resolution condemning the crackdown in Iran. Well, that will make everything better then, won't it? [/sarcasm]
Meanwhile, since President Obama is not willing to play villain for the mullahs, they've been stretching out, looking for other people to blame everything on. Britain is declared the most evil country in the world, which sounds waaaay too ambitious for modern-day Britannia. Also there are unconfirmed reports that state-run Iranian TV is recycling clips from Fox News to show their people what a war-mongering, hateful country we are. Glenn Beck is Imadinnerjacket's useful idiot. Who knew?
The Supreme Leader decides to double-down on his regime, and instead of throwing Ahmadinejad under the bus, as I predicted, he's trying to focus outrage on Rafsanjani by giving him a poisoned kiss. Complicated stuff.
Iran has sought independence and some form of democracy for over a century. It now has the former but this election has clarified, for an overwhelmingly young population, the Islamic Republic’s utter denial of the latter.
The feeling in the crowd seems to be: today or never, all together and heave!
A man holds his mobile phone up to me: footage of a man with his head blown off last Monday. A man, 28, whispers: “The government will use more violence, but some of us have to make the sacrifice.”
Another whisper: “Where are you from?” When I say the United States, he says: “Please give our regards to freedom.”
06-19-2009, 19:33
Marshal Murat
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Another whisper: “Where are you from?” When I say the United States, he says: “Please give our regards to freedom.”
Powerful stuff.
06-19-2009, 19:36
tibilicus
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Meanwhile, since President Obama is not willing to play villain for the mullahs, they've been stretching out, looking for other people to blame everything on. Britain is declared the most evil country in the world, which sounds waaaay too ambitious for modern-day Britannia. Also there are unconfirmed reports that state-run Iranian TV is recycling clips from Fox News to show their people what a war-mongering, hateful country we are. Glenn Beck is Imadinnerjacket's useful idiot. Who knew?
]
I laugh in the Mullahs face, any excuse to divert the failings of their radical and oppressive regime.
They'll get what's coming to them soon enough. Even if this revolution does get stomped out, do these mad men think the world will tolerate a nuclear Iran?
See ya in about 5 years Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, I'm counting down the days till we see your head on a silver plater. :2thumbsup:
06-19-2009, 20:18
Xiahou
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Our well-paid idiots in the House of Representatives just passed a resolution condemning the crackdown in Iran. Well, that will make everything better then, won't it? [/sarcasm]
The House 405-1 voted in favor of the following statement:
Quote:
RESOLUTION
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
There's nothing there that I have a problem with. It's short, direct, and doesn't take sides.
For some more reading, here is an interview with Mousavi spokesperson, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, who recently spoke to members of th EU parliament,
06-19-2009, 20:35
Lord Winter
Re: Iranian Elections
The last two points are fine. I don't see how you can see the first as anything else then support for the protesters.
06-19-2009, 21:31
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
I see that only Ron Paul had the guts to vote against it. Whatever, I suppose it doesn't matter; the mullahs want to put a face on the enemy, and that's Obama. As long as he plays it cagey they're out of luck.
-edit-
Dr. Paul's statement: "I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly. I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions."
06-19-2009, 21:31
Adrian II
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I hate to say it, but some commentators and politicians seem to be opposing the President's course because he's Obama, and not because they've given any strategic thought to reality.
Hear hear. American-Iranian history has been so poisonous that taking sides and applying US pressure woudl have only averse effects upon the present movement for more democracy. Obama is doing the right thing. I think his 'Twitter move' proves that the US are working behind the scenes, but very very carefully.
06-19-2009, 21:34
Alexander the Pretty Good
Re: Iranian Elections
I wonder if point 3 applies to everyone or just Iranians.
06-19-2009, 21:36
Lemur
Re: Iranian Elections
Good analysis from an anonymous Iranian here, with this heartening (and chilling) detail:
[A]s the general crowds spread into their homes militia style Mousavi supporters were out on the streets 'Basiji hunting'.
Their resolve is no less than these thugs -- they after hunting them down. They use their phones, their childhood friends, their intimate knowledge of their districts and neighbours to plan their attacks -- they're organised and they're supported by their community so they have little fear. They create the havoc they're after, ambush the thugs, use their Cocktail Molotovs, disperse and re-assemble elsewhere and then start again - and the door of every house is open to them as safe harbour -- they're community-connected.
The Basiji's are not.
These are not the students in the dorms, they're the street young -- they know the ways better than most thugs - and these young, a surprising number of them girls, are becoming more agile in their ways as each night passes on.
It was 4pm at Vanak Square in Tehran, and people were protesting against the election results. The riot police were standing in front of us.
Suddenly the police started to run towards us, with their black helmets and batons they were so scary. Some people escaped and some others ran towards them and threw stones.
As we were running down Vali Asr Avenue, a young man fell on the ground. I saw that, as he was there a soldier reached him and started beating him in the back with the baton. He shouted and cried for help. I ran towards the soldier and punched him in the face. The young man managed to escape.
As I tried to escape two other soldiers were behind me. They cornered me. I didn't have any way of escaping. They started beating me like hell, and the one that I'd punched also came in.
The three of them hit me at least 50 times. One of them grabbed me and tried to push me on the ground. The punched one tried to beat me in the face and I had to protect it with my left hand.
As people saw this, they threw stones at them. Fortunately a big one hit one of them in back, and I managed to push him and run like hell.
I didn't even dare to go to hospital because they might easily catch you there. I've been taking painkillers just to able to sleep.
When the people don't even trust the doctors... :no:
06-19-2009, 23:07
rory_20_uk
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
When the people don't even trust the doctors... :no:
That is twisting things. There's a good chance there's police / security services / revolutionary guard keeping watch, so even if the medical staff don't say anything (and OK, they might be informants in Iran) you'll still be picked up.
~:smoking:
06-19-2009, 23:18
CountArach
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
That is twisting things. There's a good chance there's police / security services / revolutionary guard keeping watch, so even if the medical staff don't say anything (and OK, they might be informants in Iran) you'll still be picked up.
~:smoking:
True, I didn't think of that angle. My mind leaped to people not trust doctors to keep their Hypocratic oaths.
06-20-2009, 07:30
Fragony
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
My mind leaped to people not trust doctors to keep their Hypocratic oaths.
I see that only Ron Paul had the guts to vote against it. Whatever, I suppose it doesn't matter; the mullahs want to put a face on the enemy, and that's Obama. As long as he plays it cagey they're out of luck.
-edit-
Dr. Paul's statement: "I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly. I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions."
Good on Obama, and good on Dr. Paul. *Becomes wistful...*
Quote:
Another whisper: “Where are you from?” When I say the United States, he says: “Please give our regards to freedom.”
I'm speechless.
Quote:
[A]s the general crowds spread into their homes militia style Mousavi supporters were out on the streets 'Basiji hunting'.
Their resolve is no less than these thugs -- they after hunting them down. They use their phones, their childhood friends, their intimate knowledge of their districts and neighbours to plan their attacks -- they're organised and they're supported by their community so they have little fear. They create the havoc they're after, ambush the thugs, use their Cocktail Molotovs, disperse and re-assemble elsewhere and then start again - and the door of every house is open to them as safe harbour -- they're community-connected.
The Basiji's are not.
These are not the students in the dorms, they're the street young -- they know the ways better than most thugs - and these young, a surprising number of them girls, are becoming more agile in their ways as each night passes on.
For those wondering what use guns would be for people fighting tyranny...
Quote:
There's nothing there that I have a problem with. It's short, direct, and doesn't take sides.
It's a thin and threadbare veil, and we all know what it means. I think Obama is going down the right path.
CR
06-20-2009, 10:32
CountArach
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Please tell me you did that on purpose.
That's what I get for posting at 8 in the morning whilst feeling sick...
06-20-2009, 12:56
Furunculus
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Our well-paid idiots in the House of Representatives just passed a resolution condemning the crackdown in Iran. Well, that will make everything better then, won't it? [/sarcasm]
i don't buy that line of reasoning.
adult are supposed to be able to take responsibility for their actions, and by supporting a US refusal to condemn the violence in case it creates an excuse for tehran to shift the blame from themselves you do nothing but infantilise the population of iran.
tehrans actions are disgusting, and the only honourable action for a civilised nation state to take is to publicly condemn it.
if it does lead to a resurgence of support for the regime because the iranian people choose to accept tehran demonising the US then so be it.
the iranian electorate are adults, they make their bed and they deserve to lie in it.
06-20-2009, 13:12
rory_20_uk
Re: Iranian Elections
A couple of assumptions there:
Adults rarely take responsibility for their actions
Adults are very rarely well read or articulate and will often mob to a banner rather than think
Adults in no country likes others to meddle in their internal affairs
I would rather take a more pragmatic approach than have countries turn against mine purely as I was following the theoretically best one.
~:smoking:
06-20-2009, 13:26
Furunculus
Re: Iranian Elections
your telling me that adults are frail creatures prone to failure and mistakes................ i agree.
i also don't care. iranian adults should be treated as such otherwise we should invade them so they can be taken into social-care, because clearly if they cannot act in the self-knowledge that their actions have consequences then they are not legally responsible, they are in fact children that mustn't be allowed to play with sharp objects.
06-20-2009, 14:04
KukriKhan
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
your telling me that adults are frail creatures prone to failure and mistakes................ i agree.
i also don't care. iranian adults should be treated as such otherwise we should invade them so they can be taken into social-care, because clearly if they cannot act in the self-knowledge that their actions have consequences then they are not legally responsible, they are in fact children that mustn't be allowed to play with sharp objetcs.
Protester have been dispersed with teargas, according to Reuters witnesses.
Smoke was rising over Enghelab (Revolution) Square, a witness said.
Witnesses have told AP that protesters are holding "small" rallies in Tehran.
Ayatollah Khamenei says the Islamic republic would not cheat, so let me guess, the Islamic republic is also not a police state?
I sincerely hope this guy hurries up and dies so a real revolution can get under way.
06-20-2009, 14:36
KukriKhan
Re: Iranian Elections
As abhorrent and brutal as the outcome may be, the silver lining in the Tehran Tragedy is: the powers-that-be obviously now fear a large part of the population; they have to deploy both overwhelming force and calls for religious compliance to quell the expression of unrest.
But the unrest won't disappear. The protesters will remember their empowerment. And some day...
According to comments on that video foreign embassy's are starting to accept the injured as the hospitals aren't safe.Ayatollah Khamenei no doubt will try and sue such actions as propaganda. The guy genuinely sickens me.
Belgian Embassy No.3,Babak Alley, Shabdiz St.,Shahid Fayyaz Bakhsh Ave.
Italian Embassy accepting injured at 81, Neauphle Le Chateau Ave.
Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia Tehran No 30, Narenjestan 8th Alley Pasdaran Avenue
Portugese Embassy No.30, Nezami St., Abbas Pour St., Valy-e-Asr
God bless them all.
06-20-2009, 18:16
Adrian II
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
But the unrest won't disappear. The protesters will remember their empowerment. And some day...
They will remember their number. Dissidents in dictatorships are always kept isolated, silenced, supervised to keep them unaware of their strength and number. The sheer number of kindred souls pouring into the streets these days is what the Iranians will remember most, both those who hold power or support it, and those who contest it. This is very hopeful indeed, even if the wrong 'tollahs prevail.
06-20-2009, 19:04
Marshal Murat
Re: Iranian Elections
On HuffPost their also talking about a "suicide bombing" of a shrine by Iranians "trained in America and Britain" or somesuch nonsense (how does one train for suicide bombings?)
06-20-2009, 19:54
Devastatin Dave
Re: Iranian Elections
I'm with Obama on this one. Best to stay out of this one because the Iranians in power now would love nothing more than to blame the Big Satan on this one. Regardless as to if Afterdinnerjacket or this other guy becomes the prez, either one is going to hate the US and blame the West in general as the source of all their problems.
So there, I got Obama's back on this one.:laugh4:
06-21-2009, 01:58
Xiahou
Re: Iranian Elections
Quote:
In Washington, President Barack Obama urged Iranian authorities to halt "all violent and unjust actions against its own people." He said the United States "stands by all who seek to exercise" the universal rights to assembly and free speech.
Best post of the day. Please read it. Reprinted below the tag.
A Supreme Leader Loses His Aura as Iranians Flock to the Streets
By ROGER COHEN
Published: June 20, 2009
TEHRAN — The Iranian police commander, in green uniform, walked up Komak Hospital Alley with arms raised and his small unit at his side. “I swear to God,” he shouted at the protesters facing him, “I have children, I have a wife, I don’t want to beat people. Please go home.”
A man at my side threw a rock at him. The commander, unflinching, continued to plead. There were chants of “Join us! Join us!” The unit retreated toward Revolution Street, where vast crowds eddied back and forth confronted by baton-wielding Basij militia and black-clad riot police officers on motorbikes.
Dark smoke billowed over this vast city in the late afternoon. Motorbikes were set on fire, sending bursts of bright flame skyward. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, had used his Friday sermon to declare high noon in Tehran, warning of “bloodshed and chaos” if protests over a disputed election persisted.
He got both on Saturday — and saw the hitherto sacrosanct authority of his office challenged as never before since the 1979 revolution birthed the Islamic Republic and conceived for it a leadership post standing at the very flank of the Prophet. A multitude of Iranians took their fight through a holy breach on Saturday from which there appears to be scant turning back.
Khamenei has taken a radical risk. He has factionalized himself, so losing the arbiter’s lofty garb, by aligning himself with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against both Mir Hussein Moussavi, the opposition leader, and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a founding father of the revolution.
He has taunted millions of Iranians by praising their unprecedented participation in an election many now view as a ballot-box putsch. He has ridiculed the notion that an official inquiry into the vote might yield a different result. He has tried pathos and he has tried pounding his lectern. In short, he has lost his aura.
The taboo-breaking response was unequivocal. It’s funny how people’s obsessions come back to bite them. I’ve been hearing about Khamenei’s fear of “velvet revolutions” for months now. There was nothing velvet about Saturday’s clashes. In fact, the initial quest to have Moussavi’s votes properly counted and Ahmadinejad unseated has shifted to a broader confrontation with the regime itself.
Garbage burned. Crowds bayed. Smoke from tear gas swirled. Hurled bricks sent phalanxes of police, some with automatic rifles, into retreat to the accompaniment of cheers. Early afternoon rumors that the rally for Moussavi had been canceled yielded to the reality of violent confrontation.
I don’t know where this uprising is leading. I do know some police units are wavering. That commander talking about his family was not alone. There were other policemen complaining about the unruly Basijis. Some security forces just stood and watched. “All together, all together, don’t be scared,” the crowd shouted.
I also know that Iran’s women stand in the vanguard. For days now, I’ve seen them urging less courageous men on. I’ve seen them get beaten and return to the fray. “Why are you sitting there?” one shouted at a couple of men perched on the sidewalk on Saturday. “Get up! Get up!”
Another green-eyed woman, Mahin, aged 52, staggered into an alley clutching her face and in tears. Then, against the urging of those around her, she limped back into the crowd moving west toward Freedom Square. Cries of “Death to the dictator!” and “We want liberty!” accompanied her.
There were people of all ages. I saw an old man on crutches, middle-aged office workers and bands of teenagers. Unlike the student revolts of 2003 and 1999, this movement is broad.
“Can’t the United Nations help us?” one woman asked me. I said I doubted that very much. “So,” she said, “we are on our own.”
The world is watching, and technology is connecting, and the West is sending what signals it can, but in the end that is true. Iranians have fought this lonely fight for a long time: to be free, to have a measure of democracy.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, understood that, weaving a little plurality into an authoritarian system. That pluralism has ebbed and flowed since 1979 — mainly the former — but last week it was crushed with blunt brutality. That is why a whole new generation of Iranians, their intelligence insulted, has risen.
I’d say the momentum is with them for now. At moments on Saturday, Khamenei’s authority, which is that of the Islamic Republic itself, seemed fragile. The revolutionary authorities have always mocked the cancer-ridden Shah’s ceding before an uprising, and vowed never to bend in the same way. Their firepower remains formidable, but they are facing a swelling test.
Just off Revolution Street, I walked into a pall of tear gas. I’d lit a cigarette minutes before — not a habit but a need — and a young man collapsed into me shouting, “Blow smoke in my face.” Smoke dispels the effects of the gas to some degree.
I did what I could and he said, “We are with you” in English and with my colleague we tumbled into a dead end — Tehran is full of them — running from the searing gas and police. I gasped and fell through a door into an apartment building where somebody had lit a small fire in a dish to relieve the stinging.
There were about 20 of us gathered there, eyes running, hearts racing. A 19-year-old student was nursing his left leg, struck by a militiaman with an electric-shock-delivering baton. “No way we are turning back,” said a friend of his as he massaged that wounded leg.
Later, we moved north, tentatively, watching the police lash out from time to time, reaching Victory Square where a pitched battle was in progress. Young men were breaking bricks and stones to a size for hurling. Crowds gathered on overpasses, filming and cheering the protesters. A car burst into flames. Back and forth the crowd surged, confronted by less-than-convincing police units.
I looked up through the smoke and saw a poster of the stern visage of Khomeini above the words, “Islam is the religion of freedom.”
Later, as night fell over the tumultuous capital, gunfire could be heard in the distance. And from rooftops across the city, the defiant sound of “Allah-u-Akbar” — “God is Great” — went up yet again, as it has every night since the fraudulent election. But on Saturday it seemed stronger. The same cry was heard in 1979, only for one form of absolutism to yield to another. Iran has waited long enough to be free.
